Posted
by
Soulskill
on Tuesday March 13, 2012 @03:27PM
from the send-them-a-link-to-his-picture dept.

chrb writes "British student Richard O'Dwyer, creator of the TVShack website, has had his extradition to the United States approved by Conservative Home Secretary Theresa May. Mr. O'Dwyer now has 14 days to appeal the decision. The extradition was requested by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, which has accused O'Dwyer of aiding copyright infringement by publishing links to pirated content hosted on external sites."

The voters got pwned. Vote them out! Oh no, we can't, there's support/oppose religion, education, abortion, etc., so I can't throw my vote away on some guy who believes in what I believe because then the "other party" will get in, and they don't agree with some diversive issue!

>>>I can't throw my vote away on some guy who believes in what I believe because then the "other party" will get in, and they don't agree with some diversive issue!

I'm facing that now with the U.S. election. I've told people I refuse to vote for Romney, and getting a lot of flack for it "because we can't let the Democrat Obama back in". Really? But Romney is barely any different than Obama.

I'll vote for the best guy (Paul), and if he fails to get the R nomination, then I'll just stay home cause

Extradited for copyright infringement? Looks like both governments are "pwned". I know, lets make them bigger, that'll solve the problem.

Who's gonna grab the power left behind by a shrinking government, though? The ones that all ready own the big government. That's who.

So making government bigger is worse if it isn't one of, for and by the people. But making it smaller won't help, either. Corporations will get even more direct power and corporations are not even the slightest bit democratic.

Government needs to be made better. More decentralized direct power to the people. In the short to medium turn that doesn't seem very plausible.

"The Free Market" is a bit like "Communism" - you never actually find either of them in practice. They only exist in theory. The market is and never will be "free." And yes, iIt so happens that those who bleat the loudest about "free markets" tend to be those who IN PRACTICE support the private power of corporations.

The AC above actually put the words free market in quotation marks, signaling that his comment was more about discourse than actual economic theory. The idea that this is an issue of "government

It matters not what I think. The question isn't whether or not it interferes with the free market (The fact is that breaking up a monopoly DOES interfere with the free market, as by definition any and all regulation on the market is interference.) The question is whether or not we SHOULD interfere with the free market. In many cases the answer to that is yes, we should.

My point wasn't that the free market is the ideal we should strive for. My point was that we need to know what a free market is before we st

These days there appears to be very little difference between the US Government and The Terrorists. The US Government just puts everyone in fear of even the remotest possibility of copyright infringement. I remember when that wasn't criminal but a civil offense. America cannot really call itself "The Land of the Free" anymore.

I better metaphor would probably be, holding a sign pointing to a shop that was left unlocked at night. Those who took notice of the sign and stole from the shop would be committing the offence, however you would probably be seen as inciting theft.

Not exactly. It's more like putting up a big empty sign on your property, which then other people come and post notes saying where to go to find illicit items. All you've done is put up the sign, without policing anything on it. It's a bit like a restroom in a gas station where people write notes about where to call for "a good time", and the owner of the gas station never bothers to clean the notes off the walls.

It's been 10 years since we've had this bumper-sticker in Canada: "War on terror or war of terror?"... and you're just figuring it out?

Pretty much, yeah. But keep in mind that most 'foreign' news or thoughts we hear about are things that tend to prop up the regime. On 9/11, the media was all about whipping up the American public to go 'kill some camel jockeys', but only ONE mention of the 100,000 people who gathered together in a park in downtown Tehran to pray for the American victims of the bombings.

Compare the amount of lives destroyed by terrorists in, say, the last two decades and compare it to the amount of lives destroyed by the US government and realize what's the bigger threat you're facing.

When some non-rich punk does something that pisses the rulers off, expect punishment.

"Justice" is just a fancy word the rich use to get the poor to buy in to their rulership. There is no reason to be surprised when any real sort of justice is sacrificed for the sake of enforcement of the Highest Law (the rich are entitled to wealth).

Something that is important to point out: competence and popular approval have *no bearing whatsoever* on actua

Way to go big boys! Extradite a harmless college kid who might be doing something moderately illegal but who's transgressions don't amount for a hill of beans, all things considered.

Leave those nice bankers and upstanding Wall Street financiers to ruin the economy with nothing more than an indignant letter and a small fine.

Yep, leaders of the free world we are.

You dirty, diseased hippie! Do you not understand the ineffable majesty of the free market? Behold! Mammon hath spoken and lo, the government has acceded to its demand. In my father's house there are many rooms but you have to pay your way if you want to stay. The bankstas have bought their way into heaven, as hath been shewn to be just in the Gospel of Wealth.

Blessed are the rich: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.Blessed are those who own: for to those who hath much, more shall be given.Fuck the meek: for they shall inherit shit.Fuck those who hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be mulch in the flowerbeds of the wealthy.Blessed are the powerful: for they shall gain more power.Blessed are the pure of avarice: for they shall take more than they are owed.Blessed are the warmakers: for they shall make bank on both sides of the conflict.Blessed are those who persecute: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Funny. But not true. Private profits and socialized losses (taxpayer bailouts of failing companies) is NOT in any way a free market. In fact it's a centralized economy with the private cartel known as the Federal Reserve Banks pulling the strings for the corporations it serves (not the american people). And Presidents Bush/Obama/Romney and the Secretary of Treasury were/are/will be happily cooperating with the transfer of wealth

Prior to the Fed there were 50 State banks. The spreading of the power made it very difficult for corporations to bribe and control. More importantly: These banks did not have the power to print money (and thereby destroy our savings). There's a reason why the dollar lost 97% of its value since the Fed's creation, but lost none prior to its existence. We were better-off before the Fed existed with its loose and irresponsible fiscal policies.

There was far worse corruption and corporate control in the late 1800s than today. JP Morgan personally did the job of the Fed (with his personal fortune) for a while before it was established - hard to get more corporate control than that. I'm not sure the establishment of the Fed helped any, but the raw data does the opposite of making your point.

The only "regulations that were relaxed" were the firewall between investment banking and real banking - which sucked but wasn't the biggest problem.

The biggest problem was that the various silly mortgage derivitave securities weren't standardized and traded openly. The CBOT went to the government and said "we need to create a formal market for this stuff, for the exact same reason we have markets for corn and index futures derivitaves and so on", but the government said no (no doubt with GS calling the sh

The problem is that the sale of the derivatives was permitted at all. Take two piles of radioactive dioxin. Divide each into 100 smaller piles. Combine each pile from mound A with a pile from mound B. Sell as the new superfood.

Australia weathered the financial crisis with hardly a blip due to our strong regulatory regime. Free marketers are deluded if they think deregulation does any good other than to allow more corruption.

What's wrong with the U.K laws on copyright infringement that a U.K. citizen needs to be shipped to a foreign country to face this kind of stuff? I don't remember any U.S. citizens getting shipped to some other country for this?

The UK a year or so back signed a bizarre extradition treaty with the US a year or two back that allowed exactly this kind of thing.

US really does want to police the world... and tax the world too- and the two things (tax, extradition) and probably linked. US expects citizens to pay taxes to the US government... even if they don't live there. If you live in Denmark, for example, but are a US citizen- the US expects you to pay income taxes to them as well as Denmark. (they have treaties with many countries which mean lower-paid paid people don't get double-taxed- it's mainly the rich they're trying to get).

And... get this... if you renounce your citizenship- you can still be extradited for tax evasion because they can change you with renouncing your citizenship to avoid paying taxes.

The next step of course is the US will start granting citizenship to random rich foreigners (who didn't ask for it) to get income tax from them.

I for one hope that the US will fragment into separate countries. That's what happened to the Soviet Union, and it resulted in a better standard of living for most people under that regime; just ask the Czechs and Poles.

"Lots of little countries", however, probably isn't desirable; there's advantages and disadvantages to being small or large. Smaller countries seem to have less political corruption on average and can have higher standards of living (Sweden, Switzerland; both have 10 million people). But larger countries usually enjoy economies of scale and trade relations that give them stronger economies (Germany, France). So there's a healthy median there somewhere; most US states are very small compared to healthy European countries, so I think it'd be better if the states grouped together into ~10 regional countries, each with a population in the 5-20 million range. Of course, there's exceptions; Hawaii, for instance, would probably be just fine all by itself, plus it doesn't have any neighbors anyway. Alaska I'm really not sure about; it's giant geographically, but has very few people (~500k IIRC). But in the continental US, there's lots of regions where states within those regions are very similar and would get along just fine together, even though they can't get along well with states in other geographic areas. For instance, people in the "heartland states", california, and florida would all be better off in separate countries rather than trying to get them to all agree on everything. But the New England states could probably be just fine in a single country together, as would the Southern states (MS, AL, GA, SC, maybe northern FL).

I for one hope that the US will fragment into separate countries. That's what happened to the Soviet Union, and it resulted in a better standard of living for most people under that regime; just ask the Czechs and Poles.

For a more accurate view, ask someone who used to actually live in the Soviet Union, Estonians and Lithuanians for example. Then again there are places like Georgia, and plenty of parts of Russia, which have gone in the other direction post-Soviet times.

I didn't say everyone would benefit equally, or benefit at all. From what I've heard and seen, the baltic states seemed to do pretty well; Latvia appears to be prospering. Many if not most of the eastern European countries are much better off now than before: Czech Republic, Poland, Hungary, Croatia, etc. Even Russia seems like it's better than before; at least now people have open access to information, the internet, free trade, etc. Sure there's tons of corruption and mafia activity, but how's that wo

My understanding is that what he did was legal in his own country. It was only illegal in the US. Therefore, he gets extradited to a foreign country.

You understand incorrectly. The extradition requires dual criminality: by allowing the extradition the judge is implicitly saying that is illegal in the UK. However, other people have been acquitted in the UK for similar actions, so it's a bit of a gray area.

So, what this guy did is not a crime in the UK, but because it is in the US he is being sent to stand trial there. Basically, UK citizens are subject to US law (albeit it can only be selectively applied).

Something to worry about for everyone in a country that has an extradition treaty with US.

His extradition is definitely a crock. If what he did is not a crime under UK law, then it shouldn't matter if it is under US law. I'm sure many things I do are crimes in other countries, but if they asked the US to extradite me they would be laughed at. The internet is an international entity (will more specifically, it is non-national). If someone does something on the internet that is legal in their country, then that is all that matters. If someone from your country accesses it and they shouldn't, deal with the people who fall under your laws.

As for what he actually did, I am torn on it. He obviously did not actively violate copyright since he just linked. But I think he definitely wasn't in the right either, as he was actively making money off of piracy. To take a real world example, if I set up a business that tracked drug dealers and you could pay me 5 dollars to tell you exactly where the drug dealer was that had what you were looking for, I would definitely be prosecuted for aiding and abetting or conspiracy or something. I am not doing anything illegal, as I am not selling drugs, but I am certainly helping the people who are doing something illegal.

He didn't break any UK laws. But he can get extradited. That makes no sense. Never mind the fact that he never actually provided any copyrighted information, just links to it.

This is so horribly flawed, it isn't funny. Welcome to a world in which extraterritorial laws can be applied whenever someone wishes -- or, more accurately, when the government in question can exert enough pressure on your own. Which basically is the US.

Can't wait for Americans to be extradited to Iran or somewhere else for violating their laws... because it would be hypocritical to deny the request now.

After all, if you can ask for the extradition of someone who didn't break any laws in their country, you can't deny to extradite your own people who broke the laws of another country. But, we won't see that.

Someone jumped the shark here, not sure if it was the UK or the US to be honest. I think both have set a horrible precedent.

Can't wait for Americans to be extradited to Iran or somewhere else for violating their laws... because it would be hypocritical to deny the request now.

Compare this case with that of the American soldier, a sergeant I believe, who while serving in Afghanistan decided to go on a shooting spree in a village close to his camp. He broke into several civilian dwellings, and killed 16 people, including many children. The Afghanis are understandably furious, and are demanding that this soldier be handed over to them, to be tried and sentenced in an Afghan court. So far the Americans have refused, and it is likely that they will continue to do so. Now, irrespective of what excuses they might come up with (and I'm struggling to think of any that might be termed reasonable), what does this say about America's attitude to other nations, and their rule of law? Again, compare the extradition to America of a citizen of another country, for doing something which was not illegal in the country in which he did it, to the murder of 16 people in a country by a citizen of the US, and not allowing that country to even try the man.

This really is shameful to say the least. When I heard about this kid months ago I thought, no way, the extradition won't happen. His life has already been turned upsidedown but surely common sense will prevail - but when? I was very wrong obviously. If the intention is to make an example of this guy, exactly what message does it really send? To me, all this really says is that those misguided persons whose job is to enforce copyright have lost all sense of proportion and basic human decency. Bastards.

The site may be a library of copyright infringers, but try finding the person(s) responsible for the infringement.

Someone somewhere did a whois lookup for http://randomletters.cc/ [randomletters.cc] thought about it for a few seconds, then said "Fuck this, I have a quota to make, and I'm not going to make it chasing imaginary people with names I can't pronounce through countries with no extradition treaty."

I am appalled that America would request to extradite someone like this, but please don't forget the part UK is playing in this. If I ask you to hit someone in the face and you do it, who's more at fault here?
UK should not be handing over their citizens over such minor infraction. In fact, I thought that it was official that only significant crimes allow for extradition request to be initiated.
PS. Please do not start your post from the subject... It's irritating.

He will be charged with everything they can think of. Made up stuff, real stuff from jaywalking to treason.

He will be facing 300 years possible sentence if convicted of even half of it.

He will be facing a 5 years incarceration just waiting for a trial.

They will offer a plea deal: plead to being a bad boy and you can go home tomorrow, wear a radio on your ankle for a year and that's it.

He will do the deal.

The US will get a conviction, which they will trumpet from the rooftops. They will have a precedent that they covet, and anyone running any similar operation will pretty well have to stop it, lest they meet with a much worse fate.

The American's, no doubt, believe they are doing this fella a favour, since their first instinct was to scoop him up into a black helicopter, or even just nuke him remotely while he rides his bike to school.

If you're a God-loving, honest, and straight down to earth, hard-working, non-gay and non-commie/non-socialist man (a real man, not one of those metrosexual pervs) who likes to buy products very much, then you probably have nothing to fear. I guess.

Yes, but only IF United States would agree to hand you over to them. Maybe Saudi Arabia already asked for you and the request was denied
The only reason this particular piece of news is getting traction, is because UK is apparently planning to hand this guy over to US! If US asked for him and was denied, you wouldn't hear much about it.

Seriously, where're the tabloids that are usually latching on "scandalous" stories before they even hit the ground? Where's Sun's outcry about the scandalous hijacking of one of their finest young by a terror regime abroad?

Some years back, the home secretary decided that pinochet wouldn't be extradited because he was...too sick, yeah, too sick. So someone who makes a few links gets extradited for something that isn't a crime in the UK and a mass murderer doesn't even though he murdered thousands. I'm ashamed of the U.S. If I were a UK citizen, I'd be ashamed too.

David Cameron talks about wanting the UK to produce its own internet giants. How can there ever be a "British Google" or the like under a system which ships off British innovators to the US when their business operates in the tricky legal grey area of international/internet boundaries? If YouTube didn't exist and were invented in Britain tomorrow, the creators would be extradited to the US post-hate, rather than allowed to develop their legitimate business. If Cameron actually wants the UK to punch above its weight on the internet, he needs to start fostering a culture of explicitly supporting British businesses and bedroom startups.

The solider who killed the 16 people in Afghanistan is said to be tried by US court because they know he'll be stoned to death. Since he did leave the military base he should be tired as a US citizen who committed a crime in Afghanistan.

Tony did so much, particularly in his willingness to have UK citizens and guests handed over to the US with evidence that wouldn't even allow a UK prosecution. Dave, here are some options:

1) Fuck the need to even have a court decide - just send the U.S. a weekly list of everyone in the UK. The U.S. can tick the names they'd like, and the UK will helpfully ship them over with a minimum of fuss.

2) More military blank cheques! It's a been a while since Tony went all Lord of The Rings when he promised to follow

Because you guys are bullies and your "diplomatic missions" all over the world engage in "lobbying" for the interests of the US... not choosing their methods. And that is exactly why you have "terrorists" going after US interests.
Sorry to say that but the "terrorists" are the freedom fighters and the USofA is the evil empire:)

Except that this doesn't really explain it. It might explain things for countries where the US has militarily invaded, such as Iraq, but not for highly industrialized, nuclear powers like the UK. The only possible explanation here is corruption; the UK's government is corrupt and not working for its own people.

As a counterexample, check out France. You don't see them bending over for the US do you? The French have always been a little weird, but one thing you can't say about them is that they're anyone'